Integration of the Back End of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle
Management of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste consists of three main phases – storage, transportation, and disposal – commonly referred to as the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. Current practice for commercial spent nuclear fuel management in the United States (US) includes temporary storage of spent fuel in both pools and dry storage systems at operating or shutdown nuclear power plants. Storage pools are filling to their operational capacity, and management of the approximately 2,200 metric tons of spent fuel newly discharged each year requires transferring older and cooler spent fuel from pools into dry storage. Unless a repository becomes available that can accept spent fuel for permanent disposal, projections indicate that the US will have approximately 136,000 metric tons of spent fuel in dry storage systems by mid-century, when the last plants in the current reactor fleet are decommissioned. Current designs for dry storage systems rely on large multi-assembly canisters, the most common of which are so-called “dual-purpose canisters” (DPCs). DPCs are certified for both storage and transportation, but are not designed or licensed for permanent disposal. The large capacity (greater number of spent fuel assemblies) of these canisters can lead to higher canister temperatures, which can delay transportation and/or complicate disposal. This current management practice, in which the utilities continue loading an ever-increasing inventory of larger DPCs, does not emphasize integration among storage, transportation, and disposal. This lack of integration does not cause safety issues, but it does lead to a suboptimal system that increases costs, complicates storage and transportation operations, and limits options for permanent disposal. This paper describes strategies for improving integration of management practices in the US across the entire back end of the nuclear fuel cycle. The complex interactions between storage, transportation, and disposal make a single optimal solution unlikely. However, efforts to integrate various phases of nuclear waste management can have the greatest impact if they begin promptly and continue to evolve throughout the remaining life of the current fuel cycle. A key factor that influences the path forward for integration of nuclear waste management practices is the identification of the timing and location for a repository. The most cost-effective path forward would be to open a repository by mid-century with the capability to directly dispose of DPCs without repackaging the spent fuel into disposalready canisters. Options that involve repackaging of spent fuel from DPCs into disposalready canisters or that delay the repository opening significantly beyond mid-century could add 10s of billions of dollars to the total system life cycle cost.